Welcome to GYOW. When you register, you can track threads you find interesting, you can Like/+1 posts you like, you can search without filling in a Captcha. And you might like being part of the MGTOW community. Registering is free.

Femininity, the monopoly and measure of virtue. And men, the eternal perpetrators.

Happy New year with health, clarity and prosperity to you all. Because only free men can have truely new year. For the others its just a calendrical as well as ontological repetition of gynocentric cuckery and aimless soul killing routine.

Today we will examine some double standards considering goodness and its proprietor.

Goodness is looked down upon by the nihilistic society as weakness. Spite and revenge is overshadowing forgiveness. Humility is looked down upon against pride. Conquest through shame and instant gratification valued compared to perserverance, sacrifice and patience.

But even when it is used as a compliment, since the desire to be seen as good is an inherent tendency of the human conscience, it is used to describe a very specific group:

The modern narrative doesnt give ontology to goodness on its own since the nihilistic premises deny reifying it into an entity and can only reduce it to a relation. It speaks of "feminine and masculine energy". When a man is humble, patient, or empathetic and a good listener, the mainstream calls it "being in his feminine energy/side." What we witness is the biologisation, amd most importantly the proprietation of virtue, in the general consciousness the following message is being implied: "Any display of virtue is a womanly trait."

Which comes with another implication, that men's actions only get value when they serve women's interests. What is masculine virtue in the gynocentric narrative? When they want to caress our carefully woven egos the usual terms are: "Assetrive, Generous, protective, responsible, productive". So we are merely a reflection of the "societal goddesses". To the degree we optimally serve them, we are worthy of appraisal.

We often hear for men "he is a good guy, he is a civil engineer with his own building firm etc" or even worse "he is a good husband i can't complain, he never quarrels with my requests". So the goodness is not derived from the man's ethos but by his utility and obedience.

The highest honor for men, is considered to give their life at war or on duty for women and their offsprings. But when the trumpets of glory get quiet, and the dust cloud of appraisals and hymns dissolves, the remaining underlining principle is that: "even your very life is not a big enough offer on the gynocentric altar of utilities".

Every trait of men that is not reflected on the mirror of women, is of course "toxic, aggressive and in need of being contained for the general good". Maybe as a psychological projection of their own hypergamy and spree of irrational decisions when left unattained in a free market with poor morals.

Even when a girl is all the way down the derranged rabbit hole we say she has "daddy issues", but "behind every great, succesful man there is a woman".

All this toxic propagandistic narrative, will change in the rational, patriarchical society and with the decline of liberalism the solid grounds of virtue will be founded.

Thanks for reading and be well this year. Don't just endure it, thrive on it. At least internally if not spherically.

Re: Femininity, the monopoly and measure of virtue. And men, the eternal perpetrators.

It's true that "The modern narrative doesnt give ontology to goodness on its own since the nihilistic premises deny reifying it into an entity and can only reduce it to a relation", but I don't see that as problematic. Goodness as a thing-in-itelf in my view is just a trick of language, or perhaps more charitably, a figure of speech.

Seeing goodness as a thing-in-itself leads to such nonsense as "but I'm good on the inside (no matter how I behave)!". People who in every objective sense are wicked and selfish, but who manage to believe that they carry "goodness" within them.

Jesus was plain in his refutation of this idea: a tree is judged by its fruit.

The sexes are different, and insofar as they are different they are prone to distinctive virtues and vices. Discussion of female vice (vanity, frivolity, inconstancy, credulity, injustice, timidity) has for many years been forbidden. Society has gotten to the point that the most evidently true things said about women by authors of previous centuries can be dismissed without justification, or even the thought that justification might be needed.

And feminism is busy completing the other side of the balance, forbidding any discussion of what is good about men (courage, integrity, industry, fortitude). The "mythopoetic" movement was an attempt to address this. Interestingly, feminism is busy trying to credit the masculine virtues to the female. For instance, when a woman posts some attention-whoring photo about some misfortune that any man would just deal with, what's the refrain? "OMG, you are so brave!"

"Brave", for fuck's sake.

And this eager painting of women with male virtues has meant that those distinctively feminine virtues have become devalued, sometimes to the point of ridicule.

All this toxic propagandistic narrative, will change in the rational, patriarchical society and with the decline of liberalism the solid grounds of virtue will be founded.

I don't share your optimism. Liberalism has never decayed, society has never righted itself from the current wrongs. It has collapsed, and the barbarians invade and set up a new society.

Re: Femininity, the monopoly and measure of virtue. And men, the eternal perpetrators.

Now I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong, but this is how I see it.

At first Mr. Chains seemed to think that real men didn't need to be MGTOW, that we could make it in the trade con world. Now he's switched gears some, and is now teaching us MGTOW 101. In nauseating detail I might add.

Mr. Chains, you might be ahead of the curve where you live. But for MGTOW knowledge in this crowd, you got some catching up to do. Besides, these long windy posts of yours are just preaching to the choir. Put them over in opposing views if you want lurkers to see them. Don't stink up the Lounge stating the obvious.

Other that that Mrs. Lincoln, how'd you like the play? Sorry Mr. Chains, but your quite annoying sometimes.

Re: Femininity, the monopoly and measure of virtue. And men, the eternal perpetrators.

Originally Posted by frog

At first Mr. Chains seemed to think that real men didn't need to be MGTOW, that we could make it in the trade con world. Now he's switched gears some, and is now teaching us MGTOW 101. In nauseating detail I might add.

I dont think he changed gears. He changed the speech like a chameleon, but it still has the Tradcom message, although very hidden.

Let us see:

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

The modern narrative doesnt give ontology to goodness on its own

Again he blames "modern" society for the evils of the world, not the raw female nature exposed and used as the measure of all things. In a Tradcom way, he wants a return to the past.

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

When a man is humble, patient, or empathetic and a good listener, the mainstream calls it "being in his feminine energy/side." What we witness is the biologisation, amd most importantly the proprietation of virtue, in the general consciousness the following message is being implied:[B] "Any display of virtue is a womanly trait."

And here lies a confusion, because being humble might be a masculine virtue, but is not usually productive. The confidence and knowledge of one's abilities and limitations are THE manly virtues.
Absolute humility is THE tradcom female virtue.

Being empathetic and good listener are also female traits. I for one like a good conversation, but I am not going to listen to a guy emptying his emotional bowels. An acute sense of JUSTICE is THE male virtue.

So actually they are right in saying that those things are "feminine energy", because they mostly are.

Yet it is pertinent that MWC choses these "features" because they are exactly the ones women claim to want in a "good" man.

Subtle propaganda or remains of societal indoctrination?

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

Which comes with another implication, that men's actions only get value when they serve women's interests.

But here comes the rub, the value exists in itself, and not through women's validation. .

Either MGTOW ignorance or Tradcom tendencies, it still denotes a need for female validation.

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

The highest honor for men, is considered to give their life at war or on duty for women and their offsprings.But when the trumpets of glory get quiet, and the dust cloud of appraisals and hymns dissolves, the remaining underlining principle is that: "even your very life is not a big enough offer on the gynocentric altar of utilities".

In a traditional interpretation, to defend country, family and women is a duty and an honor.
But to complain that the "very life" is not considered "big enough offer" is not exactly being "empathetic" for men, is it?What is it that is wrong? Giving a man's life or this offer not being properly valued?

And here we see the Tradcom pain: its not that men are sacrificed, but that this sacrifice is no longer valued by women and society.

The MGTOW way is a total cut with this way of thinking. It is questioning why should men sacrifice. It doesn't matter how much you are appreciated. What matters is if you are properly rewarded!
In a business-like mindset, you do not work for nothing, you require commiserate compensation.
But that is outrageous to tradcom, because male disposability is actually in their mindset.

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

All this toxic propagandistic narrative, will change in the rational, patriarchical society and with the decline of liberalism the solid grounds of virtue will be founded.

And here is the main point: the return of the patriarchal society and the traditional male duties.

Re: Femininity, the monopoly and measure of virtue. And men, the eternal perpetrators.

When the 2020 elections are over and Trump wins a second term, it will be just like 1860 when the Southern Democrats all got together and decided to secede if Lincoln got elected. There will be congressmen and congresswomen hitting each other over the heads with sticks (look up John C. Calhoun) and then there will be a civil war. So far, we've been having an un-civil war since the last elections and the Democrats don't give a shit anymore about how many conservative Democrats they've lost. And, Manfred, since when are women good listeners? When was the last time (or the first time) that you ever saw Nancy Pelosi listen to anything? I'm still wondering if she even has ears.

And here is the main point: the return of the patriarchal society and the traditional male duties.

And let's not forget that the women want to rule the patriarchy, not destroy it. They'll NEVER admit it, but they need it. Without it, our jobs go away and so does the child support they expect to collect. Never forget that it's all about the money.

Re: Femininity, the monopoly and measure of virtue. And men, the eternal perpetrators.

No doubt a tree is judged by its fruits, when we say good having ontology we mean the source of all goodness, God and His grace. I was merely exposing the nihilistic paradigm that cannot personify the good. I stated in fact the opposite of what you thought, that goodness is NOT an abstraction or a mere relation. As for the fact women have to take up male virtues to feel important shows that they are our mirrorrs and have no integrity of their own for the most part. If men develop en mass, women will follow. Their caricature displays of virtue that you mention are indeed only a superficial patch and an embarassment for male virtue.

@frog You understood neither the old or the later posts, didn't get the subtleties or even main points some times, so the only annoying thing here are assumptions. There are non obvious points in my antinihilistic preaching and MGTOW suffers alot from those effects. Tradconism is never something i advocated though. Only an enligtened patriarchy from which we are very far from.

@Manfred You went full conspiraterd signor. Never go full conspiraterd. Misunderstanding after misunderstanding, strawman after strawman.
To understand what goodness on its own meant is an existential thing so i will skip it entirely for you.
Then we have the masculine traits that you mention which are gynocentric traits and i reject the main premise entirely. I dont care how much unproductive you are (only women and marxists talk about production dialectics). Also i dont care how mindbogglingly humble or empathetic you are, in fact that would increase your manliness in my eyes. It takes more strength to take the narrow path than the cryptodefensive egotic one.
Another point, did you understand "denoting female validation"? I said exactly the opposite, at that point you show just prejudice against me with this buttpulled argument. You didnt take it well when i said that i'd never take your blue pill baggage i guess mr "hardcore red piller with not so red pill problems".
Again your next opinion is not red pilled enough, i dont care how much a man "is awarded" thats gynocentric rewarding system mentality, there is nothing excusing his sacrifice except if it comes as a choice from his heart of hearts, then let him do whatever he wants. And even then its debateable.
As for the last point. Of course, after all this awakening what will humanity do? Go back to cuckery? This experiment failed, there is no turning back to it. So in general thanks for the review that proved you are even less red pill than me, but its not a pissing contest so i don't care for those dynamics. We won't all be in allignment, nihilism is above gender politics so MGTOW is not immune to it, so when i see nihilism i will keep stomping it. i didn't expect something better by someone with genociders as his avatar.

Re: Femininity, the monopoly and measure of virtue. And men, the eternal perpetrators.

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

@Mr Wombat I stated in fact the opposite of what you thought, that goodness is NOT an abstraction or a mere relation.

Not at all - I didn't misunderstand you, I disagreed with you. I get that you stated that goodness is not an abstraction or mere relation. But I think it is. I particularly don't think that goodness is some sort of spiritual "stuff" that you can somehow "have", and certainly not that it can exist on its own as a thing. For that matter, I also am not persuaded by the idea that sin is likewise this stuff that you can somehow have, some sort of taint or miasma physically passed down from Adam to his offspring as St Paul claims.

Re: Femininity, the monopoly and measure of virtue. And men, the eternal perpetrators.

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

You went full conspiraterd signor. Never go full conspiraterd. Misunderstanding after misunderstanding, strawman after strawman.

No, I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am simply poking you to elicit a response. Because that is when we know people, not by the carefully crafted subjects you make. Your responses are few and far between, so you are the one feeding the conspiracy suspicions.

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

Then we have the masculine traits that you mention which are gynocentric traits and i reject the main premise entirely.

When I ear about "virtues" my spider sense starts ringing, because they are frequently used to manipulate men.
If a man is full of confidence women that want to put him down will say he is not "humble enough". When a man is insecure and women want him like that, they will praise his "humility".

Your own point was that virtues where being used/appropriated by the gynocracy. But you stayed half-way, the claims of virtue as we know are tools used by the gynocracry.

Integrity, honor are masculine virtues. Interesting that women say that they appreciate it, yet they do now show them and seek "bad boys" that dont have them also. They are appreciated and reserved for betas.
If a man of integrity deals with a woman without integrity, then he is handicapped: he is bounded by the truth, she lies.

In this sense I believe that the greatest trait men should have is the sense of justice, for themselves especially. Because it is what serves them better in this corrupt world.

Dont take my word for it, just read "the manipulated man", from Esther Vilar:

From the moral point of view, everyone should have the right to lie. It helps us to stave off society's often too bold attempts to supervise us and thus minimize our own personal fight for existence. The disadvantage of ly-ing is that if everyone does it, it loses its usefulness. If anyone is gullible enough to believe something that is not true, he must himself love the truth and assume a similar love in others. Consequently, a lie becomes a luxury: it has rarity value. The rarity value has to be maintained by incessant deni-gration, in the interest of liars. Therefore, it is very important that women teach men love of truth: for only if he loves truth, is she able to afford the luxury of lying.

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

I dont care how much unproductive you are (only women and marxists talk about production dialectics).

I never used "productive" in a marxist dialectic way. The common use of the sentence "is not productive" is that "its not useful to the person".
It is better for a man to know his strong and weak points, than have an abstract "humility" or "pride". Because it will allow him to learn what he needs and be confident of his skills.

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

Another point, did you understand "denoting female validation"? I said exactly the opposite

I think the sentence "men's actions only get value when they serve women's interests" denotes it. Your complain is that the value of men is "recognized by women" ONLY "when they serve women's interests". The logic implication is that: you wish women would recognize the value of a man even when it does not serve their interests.
If you claim "I was just pointing out that female validation is worthless because is contingent upon self-interest", then your logic needs serious revising.

The basic logic is: statement A is true because of reason B.
Statement A: female validation is worthless.
Reason B:female validation is contingent upon self-interest.

Well, since you NEVER said statement A, the simple claim of B is not used as a support of the non-existing A. Thus B must be assessed on its own, and my conclusion stands, based on what you said.

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

you show just prejudice against me with this buttpulled argument. You didnt take it well when i said that i'd never take your blue pill baggage i guess mr "hardcore red piller with not so red pill problems".
Again your next opinion is not red pilled enough...

Believe it or not, I dont have any issue with you personally, I disagree with your ideas, but that is why we are here: to debate ideas.
If you take it personally, and interpret any disagreement as a personal offence, then you would naturally resort to personal attacks... Ad Hominen is something that I never did.

So, if you dont like my "buttpulled" arguments, as you say, you can always point out their shortcomings. But saying its "not red pill enough" is just an infantile attempt to remove propriety, as if arguments where not valid by themselves. They are, and I am immune to attempts of shamming, involving "red pill" or anything else.

I can quote this great MGTOW sentence: we eat shamming language like tic-tacs.

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

i didn't expect something better by someone with genociders as his avatar.

Poor Manfred Von Richthoffen, he might have done many things, but he was never link to any genocide! How can you claim that? Just because he was a German soldier? That is a serious case of prejudice you have there...

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

i dont care how much a man "is awarded" thats gynocentric rewarding system mentality, there is nothing excusing his sacrifice except if it comes as a choice from his heart of hearts, then let him do whatever he wants. And even then its debateable.

Ok, great, lets debate:

There is something called "delayed gratification". The famous "marshmallow experiment" just proves something men always knew, that you have to sacrifice something in the present for a future gratification.
If you only consider the immediate gratification, then you are incapable of long term efforts that only have return after long time; studying comes to mind.

What you are confusing is sacrifice that has some kind of return, and sacrifice out of empty sense of duty. The first is a necessity of life, the last is exploitation.

As for condemning any kind of "gynocentric rewarding", I find it confusing. What MGTOW states is that THERE IS LITTLE TO NO REWARD for the efforts of men in relationships. You seem to condemn anything related to gynocracy by principle.
I am not that committed to words and classifications. I care more about justice and self-interest.

We can claim that feminism brought a lot of problems to men, but also brought freedom. If women are unable to take care of themselves, then society forces men to take care of them. There are good and bad things in everything, nothing is black and white.

Originally Posted by MenWithoutChains

As for the last point. Of course, after all this awakening what will humanity do?

Now, this is an interesting question. It is said that you cannot solve a problem using the same reasoning that created the problem.
A traditionalist mindset took society to the present, and progressive mindset is what we have now. I doubt we can come up with something new using either of these mindsets.

What will humanity do? I dont know. I am to ingrained in the thinking of this society to create something new.

I therefore am more interested in taking care of my own interests. Fuck society.

Think of it as a "free market" thing. The participants of society will only stay in business while there is profit. When people only get loses they jump out of the boat, and eventually that boat is left without a crew. If a better boat appears, then men can jump in...

Anything else falls under those empty "principles" of "duty" and "moral imperative" that offer no reward whatsoever.